U.S.- A country of central and northwest North America with coastlines on the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. It includes the noncontiguous states of Alaska and Hawaii and various island territories in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean. The area now occupied by the contiguous 50 states . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Greetings, I would like to take a moment to thank my opponent for his acceptance. I am hoping that this will turn out to be a very good debate.

Contention 1: A fetus and Personhood.

I will begin by first addressing the personhood of the unborn fetus. Now, my opponent is more then likely state that a fetus is a human and therefore, has the right to life and I would agree with him. A fetus is clearly a member of the biological species Homo Sapiens. However, just being human does not intell that one should automaditcally gets rights. I will argue that 'persons' are the ones who are the ones who should be given rights. I will define a person as an entity individual entity,morally conscious being capable of forming a complex thought and possessing the capacity (but not nessasarily the ability) to comunitcate their thoughts through language. This definition includes no animals. All of the said requirements for personhood are far more valuable in determining personhood then apindages. A fetus has none of these, thus it can not be treated like you and I. It can not be treated as the same as a baby that is newly born because a baby has the capabily to do these things and it has the brain capacity to be an individual and form a semi-complex thought. So, since a fetus is not a person then it has no serious right to life.

Contention 2: Self-Ownership

Everyone has self-ownership. To deny it would be to deny your selves, and neither I or my opponent would be in this debate because we would most likely be doing whatever our government told us to do. So with this stated, women have complete dominion over their body's. If something is wrong with it then they have the right to fix it, if they want to make it better or worse in their eyes then that is their choice, and furthermore, if a fetus forms there without their permission then they have the choice on whether or not she is wants to let it stay there whether it be a human/person or not. Despite whatever "right to life" "pro-lifers" may claim it possesses, it has not right to be where it is unwelcomed and invited. Fetus's are not intitled to women's bodies, they do not own women's bodies, and neither do governments.

Contention 3: Overpopulation

I will start out my last contention with a quote by Christ Hedges who is a former "New York Times" correspondent and author of the article "We Are Breeding Ourselves to Extinction". In it he writes:

"All measures to thwart the degradation and destruction of our ecosystem will be useless if we do not cut population growth," Hedges wrote. "By 2050, if we continue to reproduce at the current rate, the planet will have between 8 billion and 10 billion people. This is a 50 percent increase. And yet government-commissioned reviews, such as the Stern report in Britain, do not mention the word population. Books and documentaries that deal with the climate crisis, including Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," fail to discuss the danger of population growth. This omission is odd, given that a doubling in population, even if we cut back on the use of fossil fuels, shut down all our coal-burning power plants and build seas of wind turbines, will plunge us into an age of extinction and desolation unseen since the end of the Mesozoic era, 65 million years ago, when the dinosaurs disappeared." [1]

Now, I am sure that not to many people are actually aware of the population crises in America or the world for that matter, but in spite of the small amounts of media and news coverage the threat is very real. At our current birth rate by the year 2050 the Earth's population will be between 8 million people to 10 million people[1]. The U.S. has nearly quadrupled the number of people within its boundaries in the past century; if our population multiplies by that same amount within the coming century we will hold over one billion people. There are two factors that play a part in this and I will get to my point with this soon after.

1. The first being fertility rates, the U.S. has a fertility rate of 2.1 births per woman. the U.S.’s highest fertility rate since 1971. (For comparison, the United Kingdom’s fertility rate is 1.7, Canada's is 1.4, and Germany's is 1.3.)[2].

2. And the next is immegration. Immigration contributes over one million people to the U.S. population annually. The total foreign-born population in the U.S. is now 31.1 million, a record 57 percent increase since 1990 [2].

The following graphs further deminstrates the rapid growth in population in the U.S.

U.S. POPULATION PROJECTIONS

Year

Projected population

Percent changefrom population in2000

2010

310,233,000

10%

2020

341,387,000

21%

2030

373,504,000

32%

2040

405,655,000

44%

2050

439,010,000

55%

Now immagine an overpopulated disaster in the U.S. Imagine lands that once could be enjoyed for their natural beauty are now concrete jungles, our country's children attend schools that are overloaded and lack the teacher to student interaction we once had, social infrastructures and systems are overloaded, natural resources are being depleted, and our environment is being tasked beyond its limits.

Abortions, though not final solution to this problem can lower the birth rate so we can find a solution to it.

Contention 1: personhood.
I'll start with defining person- a human being, whether man, woman, or child: http://dictionary.reference.com...
So when my opponet states that you have to be a person to have the right to live well my friends I have defined person and the fetus is included. Then my opponet goes on to say it must communicate and I believe all mothers on this site will tell you a fetus will let you know what they like to eat and when they're hungry.
Contention 1.5: Religon
Here our some verse from the Bible that are against abortion.
Romans 12:1
Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God-this is your spiritual act of worship.

John 10:10
The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.

Acts 18:10
For I am with you, and no one is going to attack and harm you, because I have many people in this city."

Ephesians 2:8
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God

Contention 2: Ownership
No the fetus isn't entitled to a women's bird it's just sort of renting it for 9 months. To say it doesn't have the right to their mother's body is crazy, because the fetus doesn't stay there for a life time or longer. Who knows that fetus could be the next president or even the person who cures AIDS, but you wouldn't know, because you killed them.

Contention 3. Overpopulation
(can't see you 1st pic)
The world isn't overpopulated, as a matter of fact the whole world's population can fit into Texas. (if they're given the same living space as New York City) "Did you know"everyone on the planet (7 billion) could fit in the state of Texas (area of 268,820 square miles) at a density 26,040 people per sq. mile. Thats a 1000 less people per square mile than in New York City!" So with my fact here from this year a month ago this outways my opponets whole 3rd contention. http://guerillatics.com...

My opponent starts by bringing up his definition of personhood. But does not defend his choice because there are five different diffintions that are attributted to the word 'person'. I have defended the fourth diffinition that my opponent's source had on in. My opponent doesn't even defend his statement that a fetus is a child. I am taking a philosophical approach to the question of what a person is. I have alread made it clear that self-contiousness and the capacity for complex thought are far more valuable in determining personhood then bodyparts alone. A fetus has nothing that could even remotely be used to classify it as a person.

Defense 2: Self-Ownership

My opponent has in no way refutted my second contention. It doesn't matter how long a fetus is in a woman's womb, because the woman that owns the womb always has the final say. Further I will state that the chances of a fetus growing up to become a person who cures AIDs is slim and has the same chance as the millions of babies that are born every year, it doesn't make difference about it's chances or what it will become, the only time it comes valuable is when it reaches that point.

Defense 3: Overpopulation

As to my last defense, my opponent brings up a incredibly bias blog that has no scientific or geographic confermation. The two sources I presented were geographically confirmed. We are over populated and even if we weren't, at our current birth rate we would be, and it would be logical to make sure it didn't occur. My last contention still stands.

Rebuttal 1: Religion

My opponent's first point is not even arguing for anything other then abortion contradicts Christianity, but this poses a problem to my opponent since the First Amendment to the Constitution of the U.S.A. forbids the use of religion in government. Therefore, making abortion illegal just on the bases of religion is illegal [1].

Rebuttal 2: Health

The health consequences are the consequences of choice. This does not rule out self-ownership. If a woman knows of these effects and gets an abortion then thats her risk. The government has no right to take away a right on the bases of health risks. We see this in Cigarettes, Alcohol, and even fatty foods. If we were to make abortion illegal for this reason, then we would also have to make a lot everyday things illegal and that is just absurd.

PersonHoodEasily a fetus has a beating heart, organs, skin, the ablility to hear, Eyesite, the ability to communicate and you have all these things. Therefore the fetus is a person.

Self-ownershipAbortion is killing the future sure not everyone is going to be an astrophyisist, but everyone has a purpose in life and a right to live. 10th amendment states that that everyone has the write to life, Liberty, and the persuit of happiness. We wouldn't end up curing AIDS, HIV, or breast cancer, because the person that was suppose to cure the AIDS.

OverpopulationMy friends my opponet brings up a conspiricy blog and he thinks he has the right to say my website is bias! You my friend are the one who is bias.

ReligonThe 1st amendment also states that we as people have the write to the freedom to worship whatever we want and aplie it however we want otherwise you are a liberal hatin' on religon .

HealthWhat is absurb is that people are all pro-choice and when people get breast cancer for it they're all like why me and how did this happen, well ladies you brought this on yourself. My opponet also dropps all the health defeats abortion has to offer.

FederalismThe U.S. federal government is the only thing keeping the U.S.A. together, but if abortion becomes legal permanently then the weight of Federalism vs. states rights will tear the U.S. apart like it did during the 1860s. Only this time it would be the midwest area that is highly pro-life and a U.S. civil war now of days will cause nuclear holocaust.

My opponent's next statement is rather absurd. All the things that my opponent has listed common with you and I make it human. Of course I have already said that a fetus is a member of our species, however I have already proved why a fetus can't be considered a person, but my opponent keeps on contending that body parts are the only factor that is used to determine personhood when it is false. A fetus lacks certain charateristics that a person has. It doesn't have a conscious mind, it does not have feelings, it's not even a aware of it's own existence. In one word, the fetus lacks a personality. This is why my opponent is wrong, and this is why a fetus can not be considered a person, and therefore, has no serious right life that would over power the woman's.

Defense 2: Self-Ownership

The first thing my opponent does wrong is state that it is the tenth admendment that says that when it is really the fifth admendment [1], and then goes on to say that it promises life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness when it says that no PERSONS can't be denied life, liberty, or private property without due process under the law.

With that said, I will contend that this admendment is actually in my favor since a woman is a person (a fetus is not) and has these rights, and therefore, has the right to an abortion. Furthermore, the fact that by denying a woman an abortion you make her entire life harder then it actually has to be and you take away her potential for doing the things that the fetus could also do. My second contention still stands.

Defense 3: Overpopulation

The sources I used were from a research website that gave actual geographical evidence. My opponent's was a blog that was totally biased and had not one speck of supporting evidence. Either my opponent must find a more credible source there is no reason to trust his claim here. And my third contention still stands.

Rebuttal 1: Religion

Now on to the rebuttal of my opponent's first contention, he has made a absurd statement that freedom of religion intells that it is kawful to force it on everyone. This is false and i'll start with my opponent's video. He has presented a video that well...it actually supports my case if you watch it all the way through. The commintater explains why freedom of religion does not mean enforcing it on others. I will now quote the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution so my opponent and the voters will know how wrong both he and the Republican official are in this case, as they are on every case.

The First Admentment reads as follows:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." [2].

Now notic in there it says that congress can not pass any laws that respect religion. Now what does that mean? It means the state can not pass laws for religious purpouses. The religious people can assemble and practice it, but they can NOT force it on others.

Rebuttal 2: Health

As for my opponent's last contention. He hasn't rebuttaled, he has just made a ignorant comment about women's choices and says that I dropped something and doesn't even tell me what I dropped. There is no real reason to even read his second defense.

Rebuttal 3: Federalism

My opponent has made what I think is the most absurd claim he has made so far. Not only is the absurdidy unlikely to happen but he puts not even a bit of evidence for it. Abortion is federally legal and it is legal in every single state (even the most conservative ones). My opponent's claim is not even worthy of further discussion.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I have refutted all my opponen't contentions, and defended all of mine. I have proven that a fetus can not be considered a person and therefore doesn't have a serious right to life, I have proven that even if the fetus is a person it has no right to be in the woman unless it be invited, and I have proven that overpopulation is problem and that abortion would helped the problem. All while defending it under the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. And on that note I give it my opponent to do his last round and the voters to well...vote.

PersonhoodMy opponet is still being absurd, due to the fact he discarded my definition claim in the 2nd round and claims it was irrelivant. So since he dropped this he obviously dropped this arguement.

Self-ownershipThis falls under personhood aswell due to the fact that the fetus is alive and a perosn thus giving it the right to life.

OverpopulationMy opponet is just tryin' to say the same thing as he did in rd 3. we can argue arguements all day man, but when you just copy and paste an arguement that's just sick.

ReligonThen so what my opponet is brining up is a contradiction of itself by saying Congress can't make a Pro or Con religon law.

HealthI did state what he dropped it was breast cancer. What is absurb is that people are all pro-choice and when people get breast cancer for it they're all like why me and how did this happen, well ladies you brought this on yourself. My opponet also dropps all the health defeats abortion has to offer.

FederalismMy opponet doesn't even atempt to refute this and the Con has the Burrden of Presumption which is innocent untill prooven guilty which means I can say the sky is green and I'm right until the Pro brings up evidense that it's blue.

ConclusionMy opponet is a highly biased person and he drops several arguements totaly ignoring the Burden of Presumption so in which case I should win. So vote Con.

Reasons for voting decision: I am a very pro life person, but con's arguments were pretty bad, and I didn't find that one point of pro's was reffuted properly. Sources have to go with Pro, even though I disagree we are over populated, his source had more authority on the matter, imo. Pro's format was better, so I give him conduct, both had spelling errors, so I won't give that to anyone.
All in all, despite me being very pro life, Pro in this case made a more valid argument and argued more persuasively.

You are not eligible to vote on this debate

This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.